Film Annotation #4 The End of Suburbia: Oil Depletion and the Collapse of The American Dream Word Count: 1028
1.Title, Director, and Release Year? The End of Suburbia: Oil Depletion and the Collapse of The American Dream directed by Gregory Greene. It was released in 2004.
2.What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of the film is that suburbs are not sustainable. The suburban lifestyle is very dependent on cars. As fossil fuel supplies become scarcer, it will become prohibitively expensive to live in the suburbs.
3.How is the argument made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
Not very much scientific information was provided. There was a lot of historical background, as well as imagery from various time periods. Some of the information provided was a bit speculative. There was also a lot of negativity, but no really good solutions were discussed.
4.What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?
The film mainly discussed economic and educational sustainability problems. Many people do not know that suburbs are not environmentally friendly and actually waste a lot of energy and resources. The film also said that “suburbs wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for cheap oil”. People who commute to work from the suburbs (which includes most people, since workplaces are separated from residential areas) add to global warming since automobiles pollute.
In the beginning, suburbs were a promise to get away from the filthy, crowded cities. They were seen as “out in the country”. There were lawns and trees. At first, only white people of a certain income were allowed to live in suburbs. Since the suburbs were (and are) so far away from work, shopping malls, and so on, people rely on cars to get places. The supply of fossil fuels is dwindling, so this lifestyle cannot last forever. Also, all of those houses needing air conditioning at the same time leads to power outages and black outs.
Suburban sprawl is another huge sustainability problem. Farms in the United States are being turned into suburbs. Not only does that mean that a house and pesticide-filled lawn are sitting on what used to be just farmland (although pesticides and fertilizer were sprayed upon the farmland), but food must come from further away.
5.What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I found the history of suburbs to be intriguing. I already knew most of it from either high school or a class that I took last spring, but I really enjoyed the imagery. The film discussed the idea of a “manor in a park” that people in the first suburbs had. At first, suburbs were seen as a way to escape the city. People who worked (mostly men at that point, since this was before World War II) commuted to the city in streetcars. The suburbs were seen as better places to raise a family. After World War II, suburbs (like Levittown) sprang up around the U.S. It was part of the “American Dream” for a family to own their own house-and car, TV, and other necessities for living in the suburb. One of the best parts of the film was its definition of what peak oil is; I was watching the film with a group of other people, including some who probably do not consider themselves to be environmentalists. One of them said something like, “Oh, that’s what peak oil is!” However, the film did go into too much theoretical discussion of peak oil and related subjects, and seemed to repeat itself.
6.What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I did not like how the film kept going over the same points over and over again. I felt like the film could have been half as long and still been just as informational. The film also made it sound as if people just do not want to change and do not care to change, which is not a good message to send while trying to convert people to a different viewpoint.
7.What audiences does the film best address? Why?
I think that the film best addresses all ages, although I believe that there were a few uses of language that would not have been appropriate for younger children. If those were taken out, I feel that it would almost be a better film for a middle school history class since it was a bit basic for teenagers and older.
8.What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
The film could have discussed more scientific principles in its argument. I felt like there were not very many connections between what the film discussed and environmental problems, except for the issue of fossil fuels. Even that was not so much about pollution as that there are environmental limits.
9.What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The film discussed the idea of New Urbanism at the end. Proponents of New Urbanism argue that cities and towns are better for the environment than suburbs since people are closer together and do not have to travel far to get to everything. They look to European cities for inspiration.
Some people believe that hydrogen is a solution to peak oil, but End of Suburbia debunked this. A lot of new infrastructure would need to be created for hydrogen. Also, the manufacture of automobiles requires oil as both an energy source and as part of the cars themselves. End of Suburbia did point out that lots of people are needed to solve the problems of suburbia, but it did not give the viewer any real solution to the problems. While I am from a rural area, and therefore feel like suburbs are not “my” personal problem, I could imagine that people living in suburbs would come away feeling defensive and like there was nothing they could do anyways. Solutions that could have been presented include green design, more environmentally friendly zoning regulations, and making existing cities more livable. New Urbanism does include the last solution, but it is more for new cities or city areas, not existing ones.
10.What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
One intriguing fact that End of Suburbia mentioned was that GM tried to buy up all the streetcars so that people would have to buy cars instead. I found this online article which discusses the rise and fall of public transportation in the U.S. At first, people took streetcars to work. GM, along with several other corporations (including Standard Oil), started buying up streetcars and closing them down so that people would be forced to buy cars or use buses to get places, which profited those corporations. Another article discusses this in more detail. As a result of the “Great American Streetcar Scandal”, most people use private transportation rather than public transportation, which is more damaging to the environment.
The End of Suburbia: Oil Depletion and the Collapse of The American Dream
Word Count: 1028
1. Title, Director, and Release Year?
The End of Suburbia: Oil Depletion and the Collapse of The American Dream directed by Gregory Greene. It was released in 2004.
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of the film is that suburbs are not sustainable. The suburban lifestyle is very dependent on cars. As fossil fuel supplies become scarcer, it will become prohibitively expensive to live in the suburbs.
3. How is the argument made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
Not very much scientific information was provided. There was a lot of historical background, as well as imagery from various time periods. Some of the information provided was a bit speculative. There was also a lot of negativity, but no really good solutions were discussed.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?
The film mainly discussed economic and educational sustainability problems. Many people do not know that suburbs are not environmentally friendly and actually waste a lot of energy and resources. The film also said that “suburbs wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for cheap oil”. People who commute to work from the suburbs (which includes most people, since workplaces are separated from residential areas) add to global warming since automobiles pollute.
In the beginning, suburbs were a promise to get away from the filthy, crowded cities. They were seen as “out in the country”. There were lawns and trees. At first, only white people of a certain income were allowed to live in suburbs. Since the suburbs were (and are) so far away from work, shopping malls, and so on, people rely on cars to get places. The supply of fossil fuels is dwindling, so this lifestyle cannot last forever. Also, all of those houses needing air conditioning at the same time leads to power outages and black outs.
Suburban sprawl is another huge sustainability problem. Farms in the United States are being turned into suburbs. Not only does that mean that a house and pesticide-filled lawn are sitting on what used to be just farmland (although pesticides and fertilizer were sprayed upon the farmland), but food must come from further away.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I found the history of suburbs to be intriguing. I already knew most of it from either high school or a class that I took last spring, but I really enjoyed the imagery. The film discussed the idea of a “manor in a park” that people in the first suburbs had. At first, suburbs were seen as a way to escape the city. People who worked (mostly men at that point, since this was before World War II) commuted to the city in streetcars. The suburbs were seen as better places to raise a family. After World War II, suburbs (like Levittown) sprang up around the U.S. It was part of the “American Dream” for a family to own their own house-and car, TV, and other necessities for living in the suburb. One of the best parts of the film was its definition of what peak oil is; I was watching the film with a group of other people, including some who probably do not consider themselves to be environmentalists. One of them said something like, “Oh, that’s what peak oil is!” However, the film did go into too much theoretical discussion of peak oil and related subjects, and seemed to repeat itself.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I did not like how the film kept going over the same points over and over again. I felt like the film could have been half as long and still been just as informational. The film also made it sound as if people just do not want to change and do not care to change, which is not a good message to send while trying to convert people to a different viewpoint.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
I think that the film best addresses all ages, although I believe that there were a few uses of language that would not have been appropriate for younger children. If those were taken out, I feel that it would almost be a better film for a middle school history class since it was a bit basic for teenagers and older.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
The film could have discussed more scientific principles in its argument. I felt like there were not very many connections between what the film discussed and environmental problems, except for the issue of fossil fuels. Even that was not so much about pollution as that there are environmental limits.
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The film discussed the idea of New Urbanism at the end. Proponents of New Urbanism argue that cities and towns are better for the environment than suburbs since people are closer together and do not have to travel far to get to everything. They look to European cities for inspiration.
Some people believe that hydrogen is a solution to peak oil, but End of Suburbia debunked this. A lot of new infrastructure would need to be created for hydrogen. Also, the manufacture of automobiles requires oil as both an energy source and as part of the cars themselves.
End of Suburbia did point out that lots of people are needed to solve the problems of suburbia, but it did not give the viewer any real solution to the problems. While I am from a rural area, and therefore feel like suburbs are not “my” personal problem, I could imagine that people living in suburbs would come away feeling defensive and like there was nothing they could do anyways. Solutions that could have been presented include green design, more environmentally friendly zoning regulations, and making existing cities more livable. New Urbanism does include the last solution, but it is more for new cities or city areas, not existing ones.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
One intriguing fact that End of Suburbia mentioned was that GM tried to buy up all the streetcars so that people would have to buy cars instead. I found this online article which discusses the rise and fall of public transportation in the U.S. At first, people took streetcars to work. GM, along with several other corporations (including Standard Oil), started buying up streetcars and closing them down so that people would be forced to buy cars or use buses to get places, which profited those corporations. Another article discusses this in more detail. As a result of the “Great American Streetcar Scandal”, most people use private transportation rather than public transportation, which is more damaging to the environment.
References
http://environment.about.com/od/fossilfuels/a/streetcars.htm
http://www.intransitionmag.org/archive_stories/streetcar_scandal.aspx